Re: debian imagej
- To: Andreas Tille <email@example.com>
- Cc: Johan Henriksson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Debian Med Project List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: debian imagej
- From: Johan Henriksson <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:47:25 +0200
- Message-id: <1241102845.2377.2.camel@naos>
- In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904301603280.29827@wr-linux02>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904291254530.2642@wr-linux02> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904301443440.29827@wr-linux02> <1241099518.1651.1.camel@naos> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904301603280.29827@wr-linux02>
On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 16:06 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Johan Henriksson wrote:
> >> Hmmm, I noticed there is a problem remaining which I even posted here
> >> but did not got any response. So if there might be anybody willing
> >> to contact upstream about this problem (which was previousely solved by
> >> them for very similar issues but probably the new versions have a
> >> regression) we could go on upgrading imagej for Debian.
> > a related issue is that we now have two imagej debian packages (see:
> > Fiji).
> $ apt-cache search fiji
> Sorry, I can not get what package you mean?
indeed, this is the next problem. they have their own server for debian
question is if they would prefer to upload their packages straight to
debian or if our imagej package should use fiji as the source package
and take over the debian port.